HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201600062 Review Comments Appeal to BOS 2018-06-281
Christopher Perez
From:Christopher Perez
Sent:Thursday, June 28, 2018 3:11 PM
To:'Justin Shimp, P.E.'; 'Keane Rucker'
Subject:RE: Better Living SDP 2016-62 LOR #2
Attachments:LOR TRANSMITTAL - 6-26-18.docx; 45-112B-B- LOR 6-26-18 1.pdf; 45-112B-B- LOR
6-26-18 2.pdf; 45-112B-B- LOR 6-26-18 3.pdf
Justin,
I offer the following comments on LOR #2:
1) [Comment] On the plan label the flag pole height. Also, provide a setback line to all property lines and right
of way for the flag pole (it’s a 1 to 1 setback).
2) [4.12.16] Label the stall depth of the two angled parking spaces. County requirement is a 20.1’ stall depth.
3) [4.12.15(d)] Remove the 2nd angled parking space (the one closest to the southern property line) as it does
not meet sight distance from a building.
Engineering weighed in on this comment. Regs provided: Sight distance. Minimum intersection sight distance
for internal intersections of access aisles, intersections of access aisles and pedestrian ways, and access aisles
around buildings shall not be less than one hundred (100) feet.
4) [4.12.17(C)(1)] The access aisle between the split Storage Shed B is only 19.67’. Is this access aisle a one
way access aisle? If so, provide a directional arrow depicting its direction. If this is a two way access aisle it
does not meet the 20’ minimum and shall be revised.
5) [4.12.18(a)] Neither of the two loading spaces meet the minimum length of 25’. Revise.
Also, is there an overhang to the roof of storage shed B? It appears the 84’ wide dashed lines are a roof
overhang, if this the case? If this is not the case provide a written response to what this dashed line is for. If it is
a roof overhang, provide documentation on the plans which maintain a 14.5’ clearance.
6) [4.12] Parking. Revise parking calculations for the site. Provide the required amount (w/ calculations) and
provided the number provided.
2
7) [4.12] Parking. Omit the bumper block next to the old space adjacent to the angled space.
8) [4.12] Parking. Provide the length of the northernmost proposed angled parking space. Currently it appears
this space relies on a portion of the parking space above it. If that is the case, then you shall omit the above
parking space to keep the angled space. Provide all dimensions of these spaces to ensure it is provided the
required dimensions and doesn’t impede the perpendicular space above it.
9) [Comment] Depict the 3rd loading space on the plan.
11) [4.12] Parking. Provide dimensions for “new space on pad”. Also, provide the dimensions of the access
aisle adjacent to this parking space.
ARB – Margaret M.
No objections to the LOR.
Be advised ARB provided the following heads up of an item still pending for the project: “There is an
outstanding color issue with the Better Living sheds. On Monday the ARB will determine if the existing
condition is OK as is, or if the sheds need to be revised to the approved two-color design. As it currently stands,
the sheds do not match the ARB approval. This issue is separate from the LOR.”
Fire and Rescue - Shawn Maddox
Comments Pending, to be forwarded once received.
Christopher Perez
Senior Planner
From: Keane Rucker <keane@shimp-engineering.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 1:10 PM
To: Christopher Perez <cperez@albemarle.org>
Cc: Justin Shimp <justin@shimp-engineering.com>
Subject: Better Living SDP 2016-62 LOR #2
Hello Chris,
We have some minor revisions to the Better Living Berkmar LOR #2 we submitted last week. These revisions are on
Sheet 2 and resulted from changes to the location of several items on the site. Please consider this our updated LOR #2
and inform how many paper copies we should deliver to you.
Thank you,
Keane Rucker, E.I.T.
Civil Engineer
Shimp Engineering
keane@shimp-engineering.com
Phone: 434.299.9843